Water, Air, & Soil Pollution

, 224:1709 | Cite as

Enhanced Sequential Flushing Process for Removal of Mixed Contaminants from Soils

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Remediation of Site Contamination

Abstract

The feasibility of a sequentially enhanced process for the remediation of soils contaminated by mixed contaminants, specifically multiple polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heavy metals, was investigated. This process consists of sequential flushing using two chemical agents: a surfactant and a chelate. A series of laboratory column experiments was conducted with three different sequential schemes, designated as SEQ1, SEQ2, and SEQ3, in two distinct flushing stages, to remove PAHs and heavy metals from a field-contaminated soil. The SEQ1 scheme involved flushing 0.2 M ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) followed by flushing 5 % Igepal. The SEQ2 scheme involved flushing 5 % Igepal followed by flushing 0.2 M EDTA. SEQ1 was investigated under a constant hydraulic gradient of 1.2, while the SEQ2 scheme was investigated under hydraulic gradients that increased from 1.2 to 4.0. The SEQ3 scheme consisted of sequential flushing of 5 % Igepal (first stage) and 0.2 M EDTA (second stage) under a constant low hydraulic gradient of 0.2. The selected sequential schemes allowed an assessment of the efficacy of sequencing the surfactant and chelating flushing for the removal of multiple heavy metals and PAHs under various hydraulic gradients. The hydraulic conductivity (or flow) was found to vary depending on the flushing agent and the sequence scheme. Under the high hydraulic gradient, the hydraulic conductivity was lower during chelant flushing stage as compared with surfactant flushing stage in both SEQ1 and SEQ2. However, under a low gradient condition (SEQ3), the hydraulic conductivity was approximately the same during both chelant and surfactant flushing stages. The contaminant removal was also significantly affected by the flushing agent and sequence and the applied hydraulic gradient. Heavy metals were removed during chelant flushing, while PAHs were removed during surfactant flushing. The total removal efficiencies of Pb, Zn, and Cu were 76 %, 63 %, and 11 % in SEQ1 and 42 %, 40 %, and 7 % in SEQ2, respectively, while the total removal efficiencies of phenanthrene, anthracene, benz(a)anthracene, and pyrene were 51 %, 35 %, 58 %, and 39 % in SEQ1 and 69 %, 50 %, 65 %, and 69 % in SEQ2, respectively. Overall, the total mass removal of heavy metals and PAHs was higher in SEQ1 as compared with SEQ2, demonstrating that SEQ1 is the effective sequence scheme. Comparison of the results of high and low gradient conditions (SEQ2 and SEQ3) reveals that the removal of contaminants, especially heavy metals, is rate-limited. Overall, this study showed that the removal of co-existing heavy metals and PAHs from soils is possible through the careful selection of the sequence under which the flushing of chelant and surfactant occurs and depends on the site-specific soil and contaminant conditions. Additional research is needed to establish the most optimal flushing scheme (sequence duration and flow velocity) to remove the mixed contaminants effectively and efficiently.

Keywords

Sequential soil flushing Remediation Heavy metals Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Chelate Surfactant Mixed contaminants 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abumaizar, R. J., & Smith, E. H. (1999). Heavy metal contaminants removal by soil washing. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 70, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Zreig, M., Rudra, R. P., & Dickinson, W. T. (2003). Effect of surfactants on hydraulic properties of soils. Biosystems Engineering, 84, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antizar-Ladislao, B., Lopez-Real, J. M., & Beck, A. J. (2004). Bioremediation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-contaminated waste using composting approaches. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 34, 249–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernnett, G. F. (2001). Fundamentals of site remediation for metal and hydrocarbon contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 83, 281–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bogan, B. W., & Trbovic, V. (2003). Effect of sequestration on PAH degradability with Fenton's reagent: Roles of total organic carbon, humin, and soil porosity. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 100, 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonten, L. T. C., Grotenhuis, T. C., & Rulkens, W. H. (1999). Enhancement of PAH degradation in soil by physicochemical pre-treatment. Chemosphere, 38, 3627–3636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brusseau, M. L., Wang, X., & Wang, W. Z. (1997). Simultaneous elution of heavy metals and organic compounds from soil by cyclodextrin. Environmental Science & Technology, 31, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu, W., & Kwan, C. Y. (2003). Remediation of contaminated soil by a solvent/surfactant system. Chemosphere, 53, 9–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evangelou, V. P. (1998). Environmental soil and water chemistry: Principles and applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  10. Kamiya, M., & Nakamura, K. (1995). Cyclodextrin inclusion effects on photodegradation rates of phosphorous pesticides. Environment International, 21, 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee, J. K., Park, D., & Kim, B. U. (1999). Remediation of petroleum contaminated soils by fluidized thermal desorption. Waste Management, 18, 503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maturi, K., & Reddy, K. R. (2008). Extraction of mixed contaminants from different soil types. Soil and Sediment Contamination: An International Journal, 17(6), 586–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mitchell, J. K., & Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of soil behavior (3rd ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  14. Mulligan, C. N., Yong, R. N., & Gibbs, B. F. (2001). Surfactant-enhanced remediation of contaminated soil: A review. Engineering Geology, 60, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. National Research Council (NRC). (1994). Alternatives for ground water cleanup. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Nowack, B. (2002). Environmental chemistry of aminocarboxylate chelating agents. Environmental Science & Technology, 19, 4009–4016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Peters, R. W. (1999). Chelant extraction of heavy metals from contaminated soils. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 66, 151–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Reddy, K. R., & Chinthamreddy, S. (2000). Comparison of different extractants for removing heavy metals from contaminated clayey soils. Journal of Soil and Sediment Contamination, 9(5), 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reddy, K. R., & Saichek, R. E. (2003). Effect of soil type on electrokinetic removal of phenanthrene using surfactants and cosolvents. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 129, 336–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reddy, K. R., Al-Hamdan, A. Z., & Ala, P. (2011). Enhanced soil flushing for simultaneous removal of PAHs and heavy metals from industrial contaminated soil. Journal of Hazardous Toxic and Radioactive Waste, 15(3), 166–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roote, D. S. (1997). In-situ flushing. Technology Overview Report, TO-97-02. Pittsburgh: Groundwater Remediation Technologies Analysis Center.Google Scholar
  22. Saichek, R. E., & Reddy, K. R. (2005). Electrokinetically enhanced remediation of hydrophobic organic compounds in soils: A review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 35, 115–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sharma, H. D., & Reddy, K. R. (2004). Geoenvironmental engineering: Site remediation, waste containment, and emerging waste management technologies. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  24. Sposito, G. (1989). The chemistry of soils. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Szejtli, L. (1982). Cyclodextrins and their inclusion complexes. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado.Google Scholar
  26. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2000). A resource for MGP site characterization and remediation. EPA/542-R-00-005, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  27. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2007). Test methods for evaluating solid waste, physical/chemical methods. EPA Method SW 846, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  28. Wang, X., & Brusseau, M. L. (1995). Simultaneous complexation of organic compounds and heavy metals by a modified cyclodextrin. Environmental Science & Technology, 29, 2632–2635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yeom, I. T., Ghosh, M. M., Cox, C. D., & Robinson, K. G. (1995). Micellar solubilization of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in coal tar-contaminated soils. Environmental Science & Technology, 29, 3015–3021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Materials EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Alabama in HuntsvilleHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations